Human Genetics And Eugenics

Whilst activists have been preoccupied over the last few years with genetic engineering of food, drug companies and scientists have been quietly progressing with a (functionally) far larger project: a ‘genetic revolution in medicine’.

So far, despite the hype, the human genetics revolution has brought few benefits. Although hundreds of genes that cause rare genetic disorders have been found there is little by way of treatments. Nonetheless, governments and drugs companies continue to pump billions into research, convinced that it will produce better drugs with less side effects, prevention of common diseases by knowing our genetic susceptibilities and direct gene therapies for faulty genes. Drugs companies are insisting on patents on human genes, thereby giving them massive control over the future of medicine.

There are many problems with the promises being made. Firstly, the main causes of disease are environmental and social standards, yet little effort or money is put into dealing with such causes, because there is no money to be made. Secondly, the complexity of genetics may frustrate predictions. Gene therapy is turning out to be immensely technically difficult.

If the benefits are doubtful, the downsides of human genetics are already with us, or can be seen from history. What human genetics shares with agricultural genetics is the way it is embedded in the capitalist drive to control nature. In the case of human genetics the aim is to control human nature and thereby society. In the first part of the 20th century this became a popular social movement, under the banner of eugenics, which claimed to ‘improve the human (or national or racial) stock’ by preventing people with ‘defective’ genes from having children, and encouraging those with ‘superior’ genes to have more children. The ultimate expression of eugenics was the Nazi Holocaust.

After World War II eugenics became very unfashionable. However, far from disappearing, it went underground. In 1999 activists disrupted the annual meeting of Britain’s Eugenics Society, which had invited 3 racists to speak. What also continued was society’s hatred of disabled people, and in the 1970s technologies such as ultrasound screening in pregnancy were developed to reduce the birth of disabled children. Although prenatal screening does allow women choice, they are pressured by doctors and society to eliminate disabled children. The development of technology to genetically screen embryos threatens a future of consumer eugenics, where people pick their ‘best’ embryo, according to their criteria, which may include appearance, IQ or other abilities. We are already seeing companies discriminating against people with genetic diseases.

Meanwhile an Italian fertility doctor, Severino Antinori is currently threatening to produce cloned babies in the next year and the UK Parliament has already passed legislation allowing creation of cloned embryos for medical research. The ultimate threat is the genetic engineering of human beings, initially to eliminate genetic diseases and then for ‘enhanced’ appearance, athletic ability etc.